Human Resources Committee on Feb. 7th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 25, 2006, concerning Bill C-257, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code on replacement workers, the committee will now resume its study of the bill.

I would just like to take this time to welcome all of our witnesses here today. I've got you in order here and I'll let you know when you're going to go. There will be seven minutes each. I will give you a sign when you have one minute left if you're not watching your own clocks, and then we'll start with a couple of rounds of questioning, starting with the opposition and moving through over to the government. It will be seven minutes for the first round and then the second round will be five minutes.

I believe that via teleconference we've got the NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines. I want to welcome you. I will let you know when you're going to speak.

If we could start with our first witness, we're going to ask the Canadian Employers Council to proceed. I believe we have Steve Bedard.

Steve, you have seven minutes, sir.

[Steve Bedard, Chair, Canadian Employers Council]

Thank you.

The Canadian Employers Council is the voice of Canadian business on international labour issues and at the International Labour Organization, the ILO. The CEC has been actively representing the interests of Canadian business on international labour issues for over 80 years, since 1919, and the membership of the CEC represents a broad cross-section of Canadian employers, many of which are federally regulated.

The CEC speaks on behalf of Canadian business at the International Labour Organization, which is the United Nations agency that promulgates international labour standards; at the International Organization of Employers, the IOE, which is the international body representing employers' interests before the ILO; and within the Summit of Americas process.

Our equivalent at the ILO is the CLC, the Canadian Labour Congress. The CEC and its members are opposed to Bill C-257 and believe that it should be rejected in its entirety. On substantive issues arising from Bill C-257, the CEC endorses the submissions of FETCO, Federally Regulated Employers—Transportation and Communications. We understand that Don Brazier, FETCO's executive director, provided a written brief and appeared before the standing committee on December 5, 2006.

The CEC's submissions before the standing committee are limited to relevant international labour principles that shouldn't form any review of Bill C-257.

I refer the standing committee to the CEC's written brief, which was provided in both French and English. In our oral comments today, we'd like to focus on two areas. The first is that Bill C-257 represents an unwarranted politicization of federal labour law reform. This issue was touched on briefly by Michael McDermott, the former senior deputy minister for the labour program, during his appearance before the standing committee on December 7.

It is the CEC's position that the politicization of labour law reform runs counter to the tripartite tradition that flows from international labour principles and has long been embraced at the federal level.

Secondly, it is the CEC's position that the principles of international labour law do not support a prohibition on the use of temporary replacement workers.

The ILO has never made an adverse finding against Canada respecting the use of temporary replacement workers, and it has not adopted any instrument that expressly prohibits the use of temporary replacement workers.

Regarding concerns respecting the politicization of labour law reform, unlike labour law reform in many of the provinces, federal labour law reform has avoided politicization. Instead, tripartite reform processes have been embraced within the federal system to ensure the active and meaningful contributions of employers, trade unions, and governments. Tripartism is focused on the process leading to substantive labour law reform. Tripartism promotes stability and balance in a labour relations system.

A commitment to tripartism is at the core of the ILO and is reflected in three important international labour standards, which are discussed in detail in the CEC's written brief. These standards promote effective consultations and cooperation among public authorities, employers, and workers organizations. These international principles help to illuminate why the politicized process underlying Bill C-257 represents a disturbing departure from the tripartite tradition that has existed at the federal level.

A strong legacy of commitment to tripartism in labour law reform at the federal level is reflected in the 1968 Woods task force process and report, as well as in the 1995 Sims task force report entitled “Seeking a Balance”, which has already been discussed at great length before the standing committee.

The CEC's primary concern regarding the process leading to the introduction of Bill C-257 is that it constitutes a politically motivated attempt to reform the code for the purpose of shifting the balance of power between employers and trade unions.

Regarding the lack of expert tripartite process leading to the drafting of Bill C-257, to the contrary, an expert tripartite process was conducted by the Sims task force report, which heard exhaustive argument in favour of and against the ban on temporary replacement workers. In the end, this expert tripartite process concluded that a ban should be rejected.

The CEC believes that Bill C-257 will in itself create instability in the federal labour law sector. If the bill succeeds, it will open the door for further changes coming not from a tripartite expert process, but as a result of a political process, similar to what was experienced in Ontario in the 1990s—an experience that I believe neither employers nor unions would want to see again.

In terms of international labour principles respecting temporary replacement workers, there are absolutely no guidelines, policies, standards, or laws at the international level that ban the use of temporary replacement workers. There are, however, ILO principles supporting the right to engage in free collective bargaining and also the right to freedom of association.

Although the Canadian Labour Congress has brought a number of complaints to the ILO regarding labour relations issues in Canada and in the provinces, it has never complained with respect to the issue of replacement workers. In fact, the majority of the complaints are largely brought in respect of back-to-work legislation and provincial laws that limit collective bargaining and strikes.

Prior to the implementation of the Sims report a number of complaints were taken to the ILO regarding back-to-work legislation in the federal sector. Since Sims, there has not been one instance of back-to-work legislation—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

You have one minute left.

[Steve Bedard]

—and we think that very much demonstrates the balance that Sims struck between the various competing issues in terms of labour law reform.

We understand that section 87.4 has been discussed quite a bit at these hearings and has been mistakenly characterized as ensuring essential services. We sought and have a legal opinion on this, and it clearly demonstrates that section 87.4 was never intended to cover essential services, and that it does not do so.

The banning of replacement workers, thereby upsetting the balance achieved by Sims, would cause a return to the time in the federal sector when emergency back-to-work legislation was a fairly regular occurrence. With that, we expect further complaints by the Canadian labour movement to the ILO regarding interference with the process of free collective bargaining.

Finally, we'd like to add that by banning temporary replacement workers, we must be mindful of the fact that it does more than ban outside workers, it bans bargaining unit employees from crossing the picket line. It would effectively force dissenting members of the striking bargaining unit—including employees who are not members of the trade union—to associate with the trade union and those bargaining unit members who support the strike. This is a form of legislative coercion that raises serious freedom of association concerns.

Freedom of association is a cornerstone of the ILO's international labour standards. In fact, it is referenced in the preamble of the Canada Labour Code. Freedom of association is also protected by paragraph 2(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Bedard.

I'm going to move to the United Steelworkers. I believe we have Cathy Braker with us, as well as Daniel Roy. You have seven minutes.

[Daniel Roy, Assistant Director, District 5, United Steelworkers]

The United Steelworkers is an international trade union with over 280,000 members in Canada. Approximately 15,000 of these members work in Canada's federal jurisdiction.

Steelworkers are men and women of every social, cultural and ethnic background in every industry and job. In the federal jurisdiction, our members work in trucking, railways, courier delivery, banking, airlines, airport security, shipping, ferry service, and communications.

We are pleased to have this opportunity to make these submissions as part of the process of improving the Canada Labour Code to prohibit the use of replacement workers during labour disputes in the federal jurisdiction. This advances the Steelworkers struggle for dignity, respect and equality for its members, and improves the working lives for all working people in Canada.

The Canada Labour Code. Canadian labour law has long recognized and given effect to a right to strike. A union's right to bring economic pressure to bear on employers by a collective withdrawal of the labour of its members in order to support its contract demands is a fundamental right in our democratic society. Under the Canada Labour Code, the right to strike is a fundamental part of a comprehensive code of rights and obligations which governs labour relations in the federal jurisdiction.

The Canada Labour Code grants unions the right to collectively bargain and then administer and enforce collective agreements on behalf of their memberships. The union's right to collectively bargain is carefully balanced with a duty to represent its members fairly. The trade off for being exclusive bargaining agent is that unions are legally bound to provide fair representation to all of the employees in the bargaining unit they represent. The Code permits bargaining unit employees, in certain circumstances, to decertify their union or eliminate its bargaining agency status. This serves as an additional check and balance against the union's authority. The Code contains additional and comprehensive prohibitions on employer and union unfair labour practices, before certification, during organizing campaigns, for the duration of collective agreements, and in connection with strikes and lockouts.

The right to strike. The economic "balance of power" between employers and unions at the outset of a strike is affected by factors both parties are entitled to consider as the union determines whether to engage in a strike and the employer determines whether to maintain positions which may result in a strike. The union typically gauges its support and predicts its ability to succeed in a strike situation by conducting a strike vote among its members. This is a fundamental and democratic measure of the union's support and it demonstrates the willingness and ability of the bargaining unit to sustain economic pressure. The employer engages in a similar exercise to measure its ability to withstand a strike. Again, as with other aspects of the union's role as bargaining agent, the union's right to strike is carefully circumscribed by the provisions of the Code. A balance between the rights and obligations of the parties to the bargaining relationship is achieved.

Why replacement workers must be banned.

Replacement workers are strangers to the bargaining relationship. They are not part of the union's bargaining unit. They do not participate in collective bargaining. They do not vote in the strike vote. As such, the mere introduction of replacement workers in and of itself upsets the balance of power that the parties establish and measure at the outset of a strike. But in addition to that, the introduction of replacement workers has been linked by researchers to a variety of negative outcomes. These outcomes include greater picket line violence and longer strikes. Furthermore, a Princeton University study at a Bridgestone/Firestone plant in Decatur in the mid 1990s considered whether a long contentious strike and the hiring of replacement workers was linked to the production of defective tires. That study concluded that labour strife in the plant closely coincided with lower product quality.

The research described above accurately reflects our Union's experience with replacement workers. When replacement workers are introduced into a strike, they come into direct contact with the picketers and other union members who continue to support the strike. In our experience, this contact is provocative and disruptive. It is often relied upon by employers to demoralize the union's membership.

In these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the presence of replacement workers escalates the number of picket line incidents and results in greater violence on the line. The escalation of picket line incidents and violence undermines the rule of law.

The use of replacement workers unfairly distorts the economic power balance in a strike situation, and it weighs heavily against any union which chooses to exercise its right to strike. There is no legitimate basis for permitting the employer to use replacement workers in the context of a system of labour relations which recognizes that the relationship must be determined by the parties to the agreement and not threatened, undermined or even destroyed by strangers.

The use of replacement workers upsets the balance which is otherwise sought to be achieved by the extensive and detailed code of conduct that is regulated through our labour laws.

In conclusion, our Union welcomes any amendment to the Code which establishes the basis for a fairer system of dispute resolution. We believe that the Code is long overdue for changes which make it clear that the right of employers to use replacement workers during a strike is effectively limited.

We welcome the changes in Bill C-257, which are clearly directed at eliminating the unfairness inherent in a system that permits an employer to continue to operate during a strike. The Steelworkers supports the Bill and applauds the work of its political allies in Parliament.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Roy; I appreciate your time on that.

We're going to move now to video conference, and we have Mr. Vaydik, from the Northwest Territories and Nunavut Chamber of Mines, for seven minutes.

[Mike Vaydik, General Manager, NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Our organization represents a variety of companies and individuals involved in exploration and mining in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. We have over 800 members, from prospectors, junior exploration companies, companies with operating mines, service companies of all kinds, and, increasingly, aboriginal corporations that are participating in the mining industry as never before. Our service company members comprise those engaged in aviation, drilling, trucking, construction, expediting, and catering, as well as many others. Many northerners make their living directly or indirectly from the mining industry.

On behalf of the northern mining industry, I will be speaking against passage of this bill.

The Northwest Territories and Nunavut cover fully one-third of Canada's land mass. The combination of size, rugged geography, high costs, and harsh climate are formidable barriers to development. As a result, we have the most poorly developed infrastructure in Canada. These barriers often limit our options for substantial economic development.

Today mining is the north's largest industry. When combined with exploration investment, our industry is a $2 billion concern. With new mining development, we foresee mining's value reaching $3 billion annually in the not too distant future. It's the number one employer outside of government, with over 2,500 directly employed at the Northwest Territory's mines alone. Mining represents half of the Northwest Territory's economy, with half of its GDP coming from mining. It is a growing industry in Nunavut, with one producing mine and two more recently getting regulatory approval and soon to be entering the construction stage.

As an important generator of significant jobs and business opportunities, we support the increase of northern and aboriginal benefits. Mining also has the potential to stimulate the development of new infrastructure like roads, ports, and hydro-electric operations which will also benefit the communities of our region. However, an effective labour code will be integral to the mining industry's being able to provide those long-term benefits to northern residents. We are not convinced that the proposed legislation will help us.

We know there are some who would raise the Northwest Territories giant mine strike as a prime justification for anti-replacement-worker legislation. To do so would be to overly simplify the complicated conditions surrounding that strike. No official inquiry has been held to determine what initiated the strike and the resulting actions taken by both the employer and the union. This is unfortunate, as from our perspective a secret ballot vote may have reversed the outcome, as would have earlier forced mediation. Our position on restricting the use of replacement workers has nothing to do with that unfortunate piece of history.

The reality of northern mining today is that new mines are located in very remote parts of our country, accessible only with difficulty. New mines are stand-alone camps with workers commuting by air for variable work schedules. The mines generate their own electricity, operate all their own municipal-type services, and are serviced by difficult seasonal transportation links. Our new diamond mines are serviced by an eight- to twelve-week ice road. This ice road is built annually and operated for that very short period. It crosses over 700 kilometres of frozen lakes and tundra. In comparison, Calgary to Regina is 763 kilometres; Toronto to Quebec City is 792 kilometres. This road is built and maintained at the mine's expense.

The stand-alone remote nature of the northern mines means they must transport over this very short period and long distance an entire year's supply of such items as fuel, both for operations and power generation; explosives; steel; cement; truck tires; and other essential supplies, which then must be stored on-site. This year the operating mines alone plan to ship over 10,500 truckloads of materials and supplies north during this short season.

Previously our mines in the high Arctic were serviced by ice-breaking cargo ships with about a five-month shipping window. New mines planned for Nunavut will need sea-lift or barge resupply during the short shipping window. These mines are and will be particularly vulnerable to work stoppages during the short seasonal shipping windows.

A union could use this shipping vulnerability to leverage its demands. By going on strike during this period, a union would essentially hold the mining company to ransom. In the worst-case scenario, the mine would be forced to close. Even if only part of the essential freight missed the transportation window, the mine’s viability could be undermined. Should the mine be forced to make costly concessions to strikers, mining costs would be driven up, and the life of the operation could be shortened.

Modern mines are complex operations, operating in a very complex regulatory regime within strict environmental legislation, and are subject to a number of agreements that are conditions of their licences. They are required to provide benefits to northerners, and particularly aboriginal northerners, in the form of employment, training, and business opportunities. In addition, they make direct payments to aboriginal communities under the terms of impact benefit agreements. To add the uncertainty of labour action interfering with the already tenuous and time-sensitive logistic links would add an unnecessary burden to the operations and possibly make them uneconomic.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

One minute remaining.

[Mike Vaydik]

Thank you.

As the bill now stands, we believe it would shift the balance inordinately in favour of labour, to the detriment of our industry, which is so important to us.

Up until now, the labour code upheld the right of a union to withhold its labour, but also the right of an employer to operate. We believe this balance is needed to maintain a fair and productive labour relationship. We believe the labour code will serve northerners best if it allows industry to maintain the workplace so workers have a job to come back to when a dispute ends.

From our perspective, the bill is seriously flawed, in that it overwhelmingly shifts the balance toward labour. We believe this would weaken the viability of our northern mining industry and therefore the northern economy. This would harm the interests of the residents of the north and would severely limit their future opportunities.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Vaydik, for your presentation.

We're now going to move to Mr. Pennings. Seven minutes, please, sir.

[Ray Pennings, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to the committee for extending the invitation for me to be here today, and also to the clerk of the committee and the staff for assisting in the translation.

The 1996 task force report on which the last major rewrite of our federal labour code was based was appropriately enough entitled Seeking a Balance. It's ironic that the only issue on which that expert panel was unable to reach a consensus was the issue that's before this committee, the issue of replacement workers.

In that report—and I have the complete reference in my written remarks—they noted at the end that, despite the differences, there were some aspects on which they could agree, and also, they suggested several other ways of balancing rights during work stoppages.

In preparing for this presentation today, I reviewed most of the testimony that you have heard to date, and without a doubt, “balance” is the word that most frequently appears. Regardless of which side the presenters appear on, everyone recognizes that balance is a standard that needs to be appealed to. However, it appears that balance, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. As people have come before this committee, they've had some quite different perceptions in terms of what balance is.

So instead of piling on and parsing some of the data and the statistics that you have before you and have heard interpreted different ways, I thought I'd take the limited time available, first of all, just to put my bias on the table, because if balance, like beauty, is subjective, then it's only fair that we put our subjectivities on the table; and then I'll make three comments that I hope will be helpful for you as you consider this.

I grew up in an immigrant small-town Ontario background. My perception on unions as I was growing up was a negative one. My mother's workplace was unionized while she was there, and it was not a positive experience for her. In growing up, I heard concerns about the implementation of certain conditions that negatively affected her and in which she was a minority point of view. We also lived on a family farm, and the frequent postal disruptions that were the norm for the day in which I grew up caused significant economic challenges for our family.

Needless to say, when in my twenties I accepted a job as a union staff representative, I didn't make either my family or very many of my friends very happy. For 11 years I was involved in the front-line of labour negotiations. I represented agreements that sometimes involved dozens and sometimes involved thousands of workers. I represented my union at Ontario social contract talks. I was the union nominee on a $30-million Ontario health sector training and adjustment program. I have been on boards of arbitration under both the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act in Ontario and under the grievance provisions of numerous collective agreements.

I have publicly made what I call a conservative case for collective bargaining, arguing, one, that the character of work in a modern economy creates a natural demand for worker representative institutions; two, that most of the arguments that are traditionally used to portray unions as a negative impact on the economy are in fact fallacious; and three, that unions can make a significant contribution to workplace democracy and justice.

I raise these points only to illustrate that my bias coming in is one that favours collective bargaining. I believe collective bargaining is a good thing, and I have no doubt that the restriction on replacement workers proposed in this legislation will strengthen the hand of unions in labour disputes. Having worked with union members in the pain of a strike situation, I can appreciate the appeal that there is in seeing the rules of war changed in a way that gives one side an advantage. However, let me make three comments that I think should give pause to those who think this necessarily will achieve the good results they hope for.

First of all, I have a comment about what balance in labour relations is. Sitting at a negotiating table with collective agreements, one learns very quickly that the process is as important as the substance. Often you can have the identical substance come out of an agreement, and depending on how the process is perceived, when you go back to the members for ratification it may be either rejected or accepted because of the perception about the process and not necessarily what the actual agreement says.

I think there is a similar imperative in the process of labour law reform. The Sims report provided a package of reforms that represented significant degrees of consensus.

The resulting legislation was generally accepted across the spectrum as balanced legislation, not just because of the content it held, but also because of the process.

I would respectfully submit to you that whatever the merits or demerits regarding the arguments on replacement workers might be, the very process of putting forward a piece of legislation with a single amendment of the labour code on a controversial issue—the only issue the three Sims commissioners could not reach consensus on—is by its very nature an unbalanced and unwise approach to labour relations.

I've gone to many contract ratification meetings and have often had union members ask me, “Can we vote on this one clause separately?” Inevitably, that clause was a controversial clause on which there had been some give and take in the process of negotiation. If you were to take that one clause out, you would really destroy the entire balance that's in the document.

Others have mentioned, and the Sims report warns against, the politicization of the process. I was working in labour relations in Ontario throughout the nineties and saw what the pendulum swings on both sides of the spectrum resulted in.

Secondly, it's not just about labour-management balance; it's also about majority-minority balance. Collective bargaining, by its very nature, is majoritarian: a union needs to speak with one voice. But we need to that recognize there are minority voices. In some labour disruption situations—some that I've been familiar with—the issue is not always as much between the employer and employee as it is involving sometimes very fierce divisions within the union, which force the politics of the process to go forward in a particular way. There's a lot that can be said, and I refer to it in the brief.

The third point I would say is I that regret—and I think it's a significant public policy problem—the decline in our representation, numbers that have been going steadily down for a number of years. Legislation like this, I'm afraid, brings us back to defining the rules of war and the negatives of labour relations.

I refer to various Gallup data that we've commissioned, which basically say that if you ask Canadians whether they support unions, the result is positive, at an all-time high, but if you ask them about the specifics of various union activities—strikes, and some of the others—they're remarkably negative. In other words, Canadians support unions, but not necessarily the way some collective bargaining has gone in the past.

I recognize my time's almost over, so I'll leave the written comments to stand. I think there are a number of far more pressing issues that we need to face if we're going to see a vital labour movement representing workers in the future.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Pennings, for that.

We're now going to move to Mr. Vines and Ms. Nicholas.

I want to indicate that they're from the Canadian Industrial Relations Board, a government organization. I would ask the members not to ask them for their opinion on the bill. They are here today to clarify and to maybe shed any light and any clarifications on how this legislation may affect the existing labour code.

Mr. Vines, you have seven minutes.

[John Vines, Regional Director and Registrar, Atlantic Region, Client Services, Canadian Industrial Relations Board]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

HonoFurable members, good afternoon, and thank you for inviting me to address the committee.

I am the regional director and registrar of the Atlantic region for the Canada Industrial Relations Board. As the regional director, I am responsible for the board's operations in the Atlantic provinces. I am here representing the board at the invitation of the committee.

Let me begin by briefly explaining the board's role and mandate.The CIRB is an independent, representational, quasi-judicial, administrative tribunal. It is responsible for the interpretation and application of the Canada Labour Code, part I, industrial relations, and certain provisions of part II. The code governs the labour relations of businesses and undertakings falling under federal jurisdiction. The board's mandate is to contribute to and promote harmonious industrial relations and the constructive settlement of disputes. It accomplishes this by interpreting and applying the provisions of the code in a manner that best fulfills the purposes and objectives as determined by Parliament and as set out in the code. It aims to determine matters and provide decisions on applications and complaints that come before it in a fair, expeditious, and economical manner, and in a way that best serves the labour relations goals and objectives set out in the code. It accomplishes this through various dispute resolution mechanisms. The board has both a mediation and an adjudicative role to play in resolving applications and disputes that come before it.

It is equally important to understand that the board is a neutral and impartial tribunal. It has no role to play in formulating policy or the legislative provisions that the board is then called upon to interpret and apply. It is really not the board's role, therefore, to appear before this committee to express an opinion or take a position on any proposed changes to the code. I propose, then, to first speak about subsection 94(2.1) of the code, the current provision dealing with replacement workers. I will briefly touch on section 87.4, the maintenance of activities provisions, and finally I will address what the board sees as the potential impact of any changes to the code on the board's resources and capabilities.

Since the introduction of the current replacement worker provision in 1999, the board has received approximately 20 complaints under this section. Sixteen of these have been withdrawn, three were dismissed, and one is pending. The replacement worker issue is generally seen as an important, sensitive, and controversial issue between labour and management. Further, applications under the replacement worker provision of the code are usually presented at a time when the labour relations between the parties are particularly tense and strained. Accordingly, the board gives these matters priority and treats them in an expedited fashion. However, this can be difficult procedurally, because it has been our experience that such applications are usually accompanied by other unfair labour practice complaints and allegations of bad faith bargaining. In an attempt to achieve an overall effective labour relations resolution, different complaints are often heard together or consolidated. This will often then require the presentation of more evidence and a longer hearing process to ensure that all matters are fairly heard and determined and that natural justice for all parties is respected along the way.

Section 87.4 of the code deals with maintenance of activities during a strike or lockout. It is another of the various strike-related provisions introduced into the code in 1999, following the legislative review. This provision speaks directly to the issue of the parties' obligations to ensure that certain activities and services are continued during the course of a strike or lockout to a sufficient level so as to prevent any immediate and serious danger to the safety and health of the public. This provision constitutes a joint obligation on the parties to ensure the safety or health of the public during a strike or lockout, and, as such, addresses very different concerns and circumstances from those addressed by the replacement worker provision. The present replacement worker provision makes it an unfair labour practice to use replacement workers to undermine a trade union's representational capacity, rather than for the pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives.

With respect to the potential impact of the changes to the existing legislation, the board, based on its past experience, can offer the committee the following comments and considerations.

Because the replacement worker issue is highly sensitive and generally controversial for trade unions and employers, any change to this particular provision in the existing code will likely cause an increase in the board's caseload.

Our experience with the most recent legislative changes was that with any new provision comes an increase in the number of applications or complaints filed as parties test the new provision and the board's interpretation and application of it. This includes an increase in the number of applications for reconsideration as the parties test the provision, not only in the first instance, but also on reconsideration and in the courts. As well, the jurisprudence on a particular issue or provision is never established on the basis of just one case or one decision, but evolves over time and in the specific context of each case, as presented to the board.

With an increase in the number of applications comes an even greater demand on all aspects of the board's resources at the administrative, operational, and adjudicative levels. This added pressure on the resources is particularly relevant in light of the priority treatment I believe the board would have to give to any complaints filed under the new provisions. To avoid any escalation of tension between the parties, I anticipate that the board will have to respond quickly to resolve any disputes involving replacement workers.

In conclusion, I would like to restate that the board is neutral and impartial, and the board's role is to interpret and apply the provisions of the code and to assist the parties in constructively resolving their industrial relations disputes. In light of the board's neutral role, it is inappropriate for the board to voice an opinion on any question concerning policy development and the impact of any proposed changes to the legislation on the parties and their balance of bargaining power.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Vines, for being here.

On a point of order, Ms. Davies.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I'm just curious to know this, because Mr. Vines has said that he was invited to appear before the committee, but he has made it very clear that actually they don't see it as their role to be here. So I'm just wondering how that came about. Did we invite people? Why would they be invited? I mean, I'm very interested in your comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

People were looking for clarification on the effect this may have. So once again, he's not here to talk about policy, but, in the event, on how this may affect or not affect the legislation.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

So who invited him, then?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We invited him. The committee invited him.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Who's we? I'm just curious. I mean, we have technical witnesses coming. In fact, I think this organization might be there on that day. I can't remember. But we do have people coming from Labour Canada who are going to deal with the bill, when we can talk about the impacts of the actual legislation, and so on. I'm just surprised that we have a witness who's actually saying that, really, he shouldn't be here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

What the witness is saying is that he can't comment on policy. So if you don't want to ask him a question, you probably don't have to ask him a question.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

No, I was just curious when he said he was invited to come.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We're going to move to our first round of seven minutes. We'll go to Mr. Silva.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the deputants. I must say, I really enjoyed their presentations. They were excellent presentations. I also want to thank them for the good work they put in on these particular issues and in bringing some issues to the attention of this committee.

Mr. Bedard, you mentioned the fact that you had a legal opinion on essential services. Can you provide us with a copy of that legal opinion?

[Steve Bedard]

Yes.